I Believe the events recorded in The Book of Revelation happen in the order they are recorded with few if any exceptions.
I believe The Rapture happens at the midway point, after The Church's Tribulation but before God pours out His Wrath.

Pages

Sunday, August 17, 2014

The Four Empires are Assyira-Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece-Macedon and Edom-Rome

I want to address a matter of Interpretation on
the four world Empires of Daniel 2 and 7. It is popular for skeptics of
The Bible (and also certain Preterists) to insist that the four empires were
originally meant by the author to be Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece.
Rather then the traditional Futurist view of Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece and
Rome. This is absurd to me.

Daniel 5&6 (still part of the
Aramaic Daniel) clearly defined Babylon as being succeeded by a dual
Medio-Persian Empire "Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and
Persians." Which is also what Daniel 8 depicts, The Prophecy is given
while Babylon still rules and depicts The Ram coming next "The ram which
thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia." And
then after that is the He-Goat which is Greece.

Media alone was an important local kingdom for a century or so, but it never conquered Israel or Egypt or Babylon. Using
Scripture to Interpret Scripture only Greece can be the Third empire.

The
Symbolism also only makes sense that way, The Leopard has four heads
which clearly represent the same thing the four horns represent in
Daniel 8. Leopards are also animals known for their speed, the Speed
with which Alexander conquered his Empire is part of Daniel 8:5's
emphasis as well "and touched not the ground" is an idiom of speed.
This Greece as the fourth kingdom interpretation tends to require viewing the ten horns
of the fourth beast as a succession of Kings, that completely ignores
the interpretation the Angel gives.

The strongest Argument any
of them make is "The Little Horn". They insist the little horn can't
represent different things in 7 and 8 and therefore the fourth Beast of
chapter 7 must be the same as the He-Goat of Chapter 8.

Daniel
2-7 are Aramaic Daniel and are focused on the World, Daniel 1 and 8-12
are Hebrew Daniel and are focused on Israel. The Little Horn is the
only specific symbol used in both. Both are ultimately in their far
finale ultimate fulfillment about "The Antichrist". But Daniel 8 is
about how he relates to Israel, and in that context Antiochus Epiphanes
is a good prototype of The Antichrist.

But Daniel 7 is about
how he relates to The World, and in that context Antiochus Epiphanes is
not a good prototype, from a secular historical perspective he's very
insignificant, pathetic even. He is thought of as the beginning of the
end of the Hellenistic era's greatness. Hebrew Daniel also acknowledges
elsewhere in Chapter 11 that Epiphanes while foreshadowing the
Antichrist's key Sin is overall not a successful enough leader to be
him. 11:36 says of The Antichrist "And the king shall do according to
his will;". This "do according to his will" phrase is used earlier of
both Alexander The Great in verse 3 and Antiochus III Megas in verse 16.
But it's description of Epiphanes in verses 21-32 does not use this
phrase. So this phrase helps refute any argument that verse 36 is still
talking about Antiochus Epiphanes. As does the fact that this king is
NOT the "King of The North" (Syria) but fights a war with him.

Daniel
7 is about The Antichrist's destiny to reunite the Roman Empire, and a
near fulfillment for that could be Julius or Augustus Caesar who ended
civil wars, or Vespasian-Titus who restored unity after the chaotic year
of the Four Emperors, or Constantine who was reuniting Rome when he
adopted Christianity, or Jusitnian who tried to reconquer the Western
regions. Or latter attempts to create a sort of Revived Empire, like
Charlemagne, the various Holy Roman Emperors, Napoleon (and maybe also
Louise-Napoleon) or Mussolini/Hitler.

But also in Daniel 7 the Little Horn arises
among the ten, unlike in Daniel 8 where he comes out of one of the four. I believe that at least one layer of symbolism behind The Little Horn is it being the Seleucid Dynasty, but I view this connection as genealogical not geographical.

The
annoying thing is that these Atheists and Preterists don't even need to
do this to argue Daniel's prophecies were all done by the Hasomnean
Revolt (That argument falls apart for many other reasons). During the
Maccabees period it was already pretty clear Rome was the fourth Beast.
Rome was an Empire long before it ceased to be a Republic, just like
America is. Rome in the second century B.C. was very comparable to
America in the 20th century A.D. including being Israel's top ally as
documented in the books of Maccabees and Josephus.

Polybius who died in 118 B.C. wrote a book called The Rise of The Roman Empire.
His starting premise was to document how in only 53 years, from 220
B.C.(around when the Second Punic War began) to 167 B.C. when Rome
defeated Macedon's king Perseus, Rome became the master of the known
world. Fulfilling a quasi Prophecy by Demetrius of Phalerum that the
Macedonian Empire will someday be conquered just as quickly as it rose.
That period ends earlier in the same year as Epiphanes' Abomination of
Desolation.

Antiochus Epiphanes had also been a hostage in Rome,
after Rome defeated his father. And according to the Secular histories
about him, early in his reign he was a very Romanized leader.

He
would frequently put off his royal robes, and, assuming a white toga,
go round the market-place like a candidate, and, taking some by the hand
and embracing others, would beg them to give him their vote, sometimes
for the office of aedile and sometimes for that of tribune. Upon being
elected, he would sit upon the ivory curule chair, as the Roman custom
is, listening to the lawsuits tried there, and pronouncing judgement
with great pains and display of interest. In consequence all respectable
men were entirely puzzled about him, some looking upon him as a plain
simple man and others as a madman. His conduct too was very similar as
regards the presents he made.Polybius 5-7l

But
his relationship with Rome proved more complicated over time. You
could almost view him as an analogy for how America keeps supporting Middle
Eastern leaders who become our enemies latter, like the Ayatollah in
Iran, or Saddam Hussein, or Bin Laden.

Daniel 11's history of the
Hellenistic Kingdoms also alludes to it's inevitable conquest by a
fourth empire. First in verse 4 after describing the division of
Alexander's empire among his successors it goes on to say the Kingdom
"shall be plucked up, even for others beside those." That is the
summery, more details follow.

Verse 18 alludes to Antiochus III's failed war with Rome. Verse 30
refers to when Antiochus IV Epiphanes was thwarted by Rome on Cyprus.
After verse 32 alludes to the Hasmonean revolt, verse 33 says they will
inevitably be conquered and taken captive by some other Empire. One could argue the Willful King in verses 36-45 is a Roman conqueror.

Update: As of June 2015 I no longer view the Willful King as The Antichrist but as Augustus Caesar.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Follow by Email

About Me

I'm a Christian, I believe The Bible is the Inspired Infallible Inherent Word of God, I'm an Evangelical Universalist and a Libertarian Communist. I teach that The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality. And I'm a Nerd and Otaku.
On my blogs don't hesitate to leave comments on old posts.